Politics and religion;-- The dividing of Solomon's kingdom

Why was the united kingdom established by David and Solomon broken up after Solomon’s death?

In the words of Abijah, son of Rehoboam and king of Judah.
“Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, rose up and rebelled against his lord, and certain worthless scoundrels gathered around him and defied Rehoboam the son
of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and irresolute [or “young and tender-hearted”] and could not withstand them” (2 Chronicles ch13 vv6-7).
But of course there’s a family bias in that explanation.

We need to look further into the background of these events.
In the first place, even the kingdom of David and Solomon was always a very loose union.
Before Saul’s time, the tribes of Israel had only known “judges”, who acted as war-leaders and arbitrators.
Saul’s reign was long enough to build up reserves of loyalty which enabled a comparatively feeble son to claim the title of king over most of the
land.
Initially, David was the choice of his own tribe alone.
Even when he had been accepted by the larger confederation, the northern tribes and the supporters of the house of Saul remained restive.
As he went into exile (during Absolom’s rebellion) he was cursed by Shimei, a leading member of the house of Saul.
The end of that rebellion was marked by a fresh quarrel between Judah and the other tribes. As a result, a man called Sheba, a Benjaminite, raised the
standard of revolt;
“We have no portion in David, and we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse;
Every man to his tents, O Israel!” (2 Samuel ch20 v1)

Solomon managed to keep a lid on this kind of tension.
He obliged Shimei to remain in Jerusalem, under his watchful eye, and executed him on the first plausible excuse (1 Kings ch2 vv36-46).
Yet there was trouble seething under that canopy of well-organised administration.
The source of the trouble was forced labour, used mainly for building work.
We are assured in 1 Kings that this labour was not imposed on the Israelites themselves.
The other nations living amongst them did the heavy work, the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. The people of Israel served only
as officials and soldiers.
However, I’m not entirely convinced by this assurance.
The future rebel Jeroboam was put in charge of “the forced labour of the house of Joseph” (1 Kings ch11 v28).
Now this could refer to the other nations remaining in that territory, as described in Judges ch1.
But when Solomon died, it was the assembly of Israel who came to Rehoboam and complained to him that “Your father made our yoke heavy”.
And their first act of rebellion was the stoning of Adoram, who was “taskmaster over the forced labour”.
One way or another, Solomon was responsible for the existence of the heavy burden which provoked this reaction.

At the same time, most of the blame for the outcome of the crisis must rest upon Rehoboam himself.
How old was he, exactly?
Chronicles calls him “young and irresolute”, but also gives his age as forty-one.
However, the Chronicler has been known to get these details wrong.
To be honest, the king was conducting himself like a callow youth, recalling Shakespeare’s version of Richard II.
He refused to listen to the old counsellors who served his father.
Instead, he took his cue from “the young men who grew up with him”.
The old men advised him to give a sympathetic answer to the people’s complaints.
For heaven’s sake, it was only necessary to “speak good words to them”.
He could have made the promises even if he did not intend to keep them- had he not learned that much about politics?
But his pride of power, encouraged by his cronies, prompted him to respond with arrogant bravado.
“My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins…
My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions”.
Then he sent the taskmaster to enforce his next commands.
It was hardly surprising that Israel reacted with violence and raised once more the old battle-cry;
“We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse.
To your tents, O Israel!” (1 Kings ch12)
Their chosen king was Jeroboam, a former taskmaster who had fallen out with Solomon and gone into exile.

As we try to distribute the responsibility for these events, a further complication is God’s involvement in the matter.
While Solomon was still alive, the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite intercepted Jeroboam on the road out of Jerusalem.
He took the garment he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces.
Then he offered ten pieces to Jeroboam, holding the rest back.
He explained that he was acting out God’s message;
“I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon and will give you ten tribes; but he shall have one tribe for the sake of my servant
David” (1 Kings ch11 vv29-36).
This involvement was confirmed publicly by Shemaiah “the man of God”. When Rehoboam was preparing to re-impose unity by force, Shemaiah came
forward to forbid the attempt, declaring, on God’s behalf, “This thing is from me” (ch13 v24).

So there is a sense in which God himself was responsible for the division of the kingdom.
What was his motivation?

The primary reason, as announced by Ahijah, was that Solomon was busy worshipping other gods instead of confining himself to the God of Israel.
Therefore he did not deserve to have the whole kingdom retained for his family.
One tribe only would be reserved for his house, for the sake of the promises made to David.

I’d like to suggest, cautiously, some other factors which could have influenced the decision.
Firstly, the forced labour problem. Possibly the God of Israel himself disliked the way this was developing.
He might have preferred the kingdom to be divided, rather than united under a “taskmaster” system. The importance of that issue could have
prompted his own interest in Jeroboam.

Secondly, a different angle on the idolatry question. The territory of the northern kingdom had a more mixed population than the territory of Judah.
Consequently, it was more “multicultural”, so that the worship of the Lord faced more competition from, or more danger of compromise with, the
cult of local gods or foreign gods. In a united kingdom, the worship of the Lord might have been overwhelmed, even in Jerusalem. But one of the
effects of the division was that the kingdom of Judah was somewhat isolated from these influences.

Thirdly, the continuity and development of the tradition of prophecy. As far as we can tell from the histories, prophecy almost withered away in the
Temple-focussed southern kingdom (though there might have been what I call “king’s prophets”). Prophecy was much more vigorous in the northern
kingdom, stimulated by the necessity of combat. The prophecy of the later kingdom of Judah was probably inspired by, and perhaps even recruited from,
the traditions of the north. Therefore the division of the kingdom would have been necessary in order to fulfil everything that God intended prophecy
to do.

Jeroboam’s motives for accepting a kingdom may have been self-serving, and there may well have been “scoundrels” among those who proclaimed
him.
Nevertheless, the division of the kingdom might serve God’s purposes, for all these reasons, better than Abijah could have realised.

The puzzle about Ahijah’s division of the cloak is that his explanation counts only eleven tribes.
So which is the unmentioned twelfth tribe?
Some people suggest Benjamin, because that territory is associated with Judah in the later history of the kingdoms.
When Rehoboam is assembling his army, he can mobilise “all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin” (though perhaps not “all of
Benjamin”).
But Benjamin, at this stage, would still be feeling greater loyalty towards the house of Saul than to the house of David.
They would be fully incorporated into Judah later, when the kings of Judah were strong enough to push the boundary northwards.
Surely the “twelfth tribe” has to be Simeon. When the tribal territories were being mapped out, they had already been reduced to a small group of
villages in the south of Judah.
It is geographically impossible for Simeon to be included among the “ten tribes” of the northern kingdom. Without Benjamin, therefore, they would
only be nine tribes.
At the same time, Simeon are close enough to absorption into Judah that Ahijah could naturally call the combination “one tribe”, which would not
have been the case with Benjamin.

I know. It doesn't make any sense. It's like it's just a story that someone made up. Or maybe they just got it wrong after many years of trying to
keep it together and straight.

Probably had a lot to do with the fact that they were a barbarous war centric tribal culture that believed in things like gods and prophesies. You
know, kinda like what some people like to live like today, including most of the world's leaders. If only we could overcome these books that lead
people to form these petty cults and get people to study science as hard as they study the freaking bible. Maybe then folks could understand that they
shouldn't let these stories have so much power over their lives. Maybe then they wouldn't divide themselves up into so many sects that fervently and
sometimes violently disagree with each other.

a reply to: Woodcarver
In fact the outcome is explainable, almost to the point of being predictable, in terms of the normal outworking of politics.
That was being laid out in the OP, but I take it you didn't read beyond the opening line.

a reply to: DISRAELI
Yea, i read it. I even agreed with you. Groups go to war with eachother because they are divided by ideas. Stupid ones at that. Like who's version of
the truth is real.

Most of the time they are only divided by which ancient text they arbitrarily give more credence too. Other times it's over resources or territory. We
can only go off of written accounts, and those can't really be taken at face value. We know that the victors version of history is the one that
doesn't get destroyed. All other points of view are lost to us forever. That is why the various books of the bible don't really support eachother and
on occasion, blatantly contradict eachother. Which in turn makes it very unreliable to use as a valid historic document.

I prefer star wars any way. For instance, why did Obi-wan leave annakin alive on mustafar when he clearly knew that he was fully corrupted by the dark
side? The answer comes in episode 6 when luke pulls his father away from palpatines control and returns him to the light. Obi-wan's decision to have
compassion for annakin when he was injured and down was what Obi felt was the right thing to do, and without that decision, vader would not have been
there to help luke defeat the emperor. You see, because there was no body left in the galaxy strong enough to stand up to the emporer. Luke certainly
couldn't have pulled it off by himself.

How many gods do you believe in? Because it says right there that Solomon was busy worshipping other gods. In your interpretation, does that prove
to you that there were other gods just as powerful as yahweh? Solomon clearly believed they were either as strong or stronger. Otherwise he wouldn't
have risked pissing god off. Why don't you believe what solomon clearly believed? It's written right there in the bible. How many gods were vying for
solomon's attention? How many gods existed in those days? Where did they go? We have plenty of writings to document their existance. Do you give those
writings equal credence?

So there is a sense in which God himself was responsible for the division of the kingdom.
What was his motivation?

It goes back to Samuel.

1 Samuel 8 WEB
7Yahweh said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in all that they tell you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me,
that I should not be king over them. 8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even to
this day, in that they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also to you. 9Now therefore listen to their voice: however you shall
protest solemnly to them, and shall show them the way of the king who shall reign over them."

Samuel's Warning About Kings

10Samuel told all the words of Yahweh to the people who asked of him a king. 11He said, "This will be the way of the king who shall reign over you: he
will take your sons, and appoint them to him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots; 12and he will appoint
them to him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and [he will set some] to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his
instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14He will
take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive groves, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15He will take the tenth of your
seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16He will take your male servants, and your female servants, and your best
young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17He will take the tenth of your flocks: and you shall be his servants. 18You shall cry out in
that day because of your king whom you shall have chosen you; and Yahweh will not answer you in that day."

God Grants the Request

19But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; and they said, "No; but we will have a king over us, 20that we also may be like all the
nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles."

We have this tension from here on out, right to the present day and into the future. The people insist upon being like the nations. They will not
settle for any less.

The Solomon story is the archetype for the idea of grand empire with Jerusalem as the capital, with all the nations of the known world coming long
distances to seek wisdom and form alliances, and trade deals and industry. It's a fantasy.

The cost to the people is more than they were willing to put up with, the taxes of crops, lumber, military inscription, etc.

Take it to its logical conclusion. If having a king is rebellion from the god. If being like the other nations was rebellion against the command to be
different from the nations. Then the god granting a perpetual dynasty to David was like granting a perpetual rebellion from the god on two fronts. And
that's even without any other rebellion such as idolatry.

From hardness of heart and rebellion to further hardness of heart and rebellion. And the god lets the people do it to themselves. Then he confirms it
by making it perpetual. And all the future promises of glory and victory are already colored by the rebellion which led to the first king Saul being
chosen.

a reply to: pthena
He didn't really want a Temple either. When it was proposed, his first reaction was "If I wanted a house of cedar, I would have asked for one before
now" (2 Samuel ch7 v7). Yet once it was there, he tolerated it and found ways of using it. I suppose the same can be said about the institution of
kingship.

But, as you say, there is also a "give them enough rope..." element in these things. Like the mystery of the "hardening of Pharaoh's heart".

Yet once it was there, he tolerated it and found ways of using it. I suppose the same can be said about the institution of kingship.

But, as you say, there is also a "give them enough rope..." element in these things. Like the mystery of the "hardening of Pharaoh's heart".

In practical terms, it leaves many points upon which factionalism can be based:

One group says, we need to forget temples, messiahs, and countries and be Torah alone.

Another group says, we need to get back to our country.

Another group, if only we had a messiah.

Another group, if only we had country, temple, Torah, and Messiah then we would be the head of the World. And the kingdom empire will endure
forever.

What we end up with is a pathological obsession with Jerusalem.

Zechariah 12 NIV
The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares: 2“I am
going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. 3On that day, when all
the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure
themselves. 4On that day I will strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness,” declares the Lord. “I will keep a watchful eye over
Judah, but I will blind all the horses of the nations. 5Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘The people of Jerusalem are strong,
because the Lord Almighty is their God.’

So it isn't enough that one chosen nation goes mad, the whole world gets pulled into the madness to be destroyed.

No matter how many Christian Denominations say no! no! that isn't the way it works, there will always be those Bible versus scholarship people saying
"Yes, yes, it says right here, that's what has to happen. There is no avoiding it. Those who teach otherwise are perverting the word of god!" And
those reeling in drunkenness and delusion from the prophecy itself will listen to that which leads to death and destruction.

Everyone knows that Solomon is not a historical person (most at least) so I find this to be a little silly but I am game anyway.

Solomon was a guy who had 700 wives and 300 concubines and sacrificed to the idols of all of them. He possessed a "magic ring" (lord of the rings,
Saturn hexagon/hexagram) He had dominion over 72 demons and they built his (not real life) temple.

He died insane and a laughingstock and the only reason he is revered is that he makes the southern Kingdom look great by comparison and takes the
blame for real life Israels idolatry and apostasy. He is a descendant of Jesse who is Messiah bloodline and an illegitimate child yet King. Sound
familiar? Ashkenazi?

The story is older but it was the Ashkenazi of today who decided that the Seal of Solomon would be on the new Israeli flag. Only publicly it's called
the sheild of David it has always been known as the Seal of Solomon and still really is the Seal of Solomon or Star of Saturn, Chiun(?) and other
Saturnian gods. It's an occult (sorcery to be specific) symbol going back millennia but not to David.

Solomon IS Saturn. The "Lord of the ring(s)." The northern tribes "assimilated"(read: never existed) after the captivity into Syria and are "lost"
allowing Ethiopians and Brits to claim Israelite descent and basically anyone who wants.

Still, I like Solomon. 🇮🇱✡🔯and give you a star and a flag. Not these.↖Real ATS ones. Shemiah SHMH Shemosh/Chemosh??? Shlomoh (Solomon in
Hebrew) (weird, right?) ???You never know...

originally posted by: DISRAELI
The puzzle about Ahijah’s division of the cloak is that his explanation counts only eleven tribes.
So which is the unmentioned twelfth tribe?

Because the Levites don't share in the booty of the other 11 (or 10& 2/2 tribes Ephraim and Mannassah) as decreed by Yahweh. They are the 12th tribe
but don't share with the 11 others.

Some people suggest Benjamin, because that territory is associated with Judah in the later history of the kingdoms.
When Rehoboam is assembling his army, he can mobilise “all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin” (though perhaps not “all of
Benjamin”).
But Benjamin, at this stage, would still be feeling greater loyalty towards the house of Saul than to the house of David.
They would be fully incorporated into Judah later, when the kings of Judah were strong enough to push the boundary northwards.
Surely the “twelfth tribe” has to be Simeon. When the tribal territories were being mapped out, they had already been reduced to a small group of
villages in the south of Judah.
It is geographically impossible for Simeon to be included among the “ten tribes” of the northern kingdom. Without Benjamin, therefore, they would
only be nine tribes.
At the same time, Simeon are close enough to absorption into Judah that Ahijah could naturally call the combination “one tribe”, which would not
have been the case with Benjamin.

Benjamin is of the 11 tribes that inherited land in Israel, it's the Levites that are #12.

Then there is the list of the twelve tribes which receive portions of land (e.g Numbers ch1).
This resembles the first list, with two important differences. Levi is left out, being set aside for God, and Joseph is divided into the two distinct
tribes Manasseh and Ephraim.
The effect of these two changes is that the total remains at twelve, although they are not quite the same twelve.

The division of Ahijah's cloak into twelve pieces is about the second list, the twelve tribes with apportionments of territory.

Then there is the list of the twelve tribes which receive portions of land (e.g Numbers ch1).
This resembles the first list, with two important differences. Levi is left out, being set aside for God, and Joseph is divided into the two distinct
tribes Manasseh and Ephraim.

Correction, half tribes (Ephraim and Mannassah) not 2 distinct. You aren't aware of them being half tribes, are you?

The effect of these two changes is that the total remains at twelve, although they are not quite the same twelve.

The division of Ahijah's cloak into twelve pieces is about the second list, the twelve tribes with apportionments of territory.

I fixed your errors because I had to so people know the facts. Not to embarrass you but I hope you aren't embarrassed and can find the nerve to say
thanks, I was unaware previously and now am not.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.